Abstract P642: Assessment of Health Literacy in Colombia: A First Step for a Cardiovascular Education Program for the Community
Authors: Ricardo A Pena-Silva, Ana Castrillon-Collazos, Jonathan Arango Junco, Julio Sanchez-Arevalo, Gustavo Villegas-Gomez, Julio Boada Martinez, Maria Artunduaga-Bocanegra, Leslie Vargas-Ramirez, Bellanid Rodriguez-Caceres, Walberto Buelvas, Jazmine Escobar-Perez
Journal: Circulation (2023)

Introduction: Adequate health literacy enables patients and caregivers to make appropriate decisions and achieve better health outcomes. However, much information about health literacy comes from developed and English-speaking countries. There is very little information about health literacy levels in countries such as Colombia and these data, therefore, cannot be used as an input in the development of cardiovascular education programs for the community. Our objective was to optimize and adapt the Spanish validation of the short version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in adults (s-TOFHLA) to the context of the Colombian health system. This test was chosen because its multiple questions and sections can guide the skills that should be emphasized in a health education course for patients and caregivers (i.e. navigation in the health care system, interpretation of medical instructions, understanding of doses and forms of drug dispensing). This test consists of two parts: numerical and reading comprehension (Readings A and B). The TOFHLA is graded using a score between 1 and 100 points, which classifies the participant into categories of adequate, marginal or inadequate health literacy. Methods: The validation process was carried out in the following steps 1) cultural and language adaptation, 2) expert consensus (n=7), 3) a cognitive survey (n=10), 4) piloting (n=40), and 5) application in the community (n=148). The study was conducted in 6 cities, from 5 departments (equivalent to an state) in Colombia. Results: In the piloting (n=40) Cronbach's α was 0.76 for numerical comprehension, 0.58 for reading A, and 0.95 for reading B. In the broader sample (n=148) the Cronbach's α for numerical comprehension, reading A and reading B was 0.84, 0.89, and 0.95, respectively. Most of the sample had an adequate level of literacy (77.1%), however, the percentages in the marginal (6%) and inadequate (16.7%) categories can still be considered high. Health literacy levels are lower in people with the lowest level of schooling and socioeconomic strata. In addition, there seem to be differences between urban and rural populations. No differences have been observed according to the sex of the participants. Conclusions: It is critical to assess health literacy with instruments that have been adequately validated and adapted to the conditions of each health system. This process requires the participation of health and language experts. The piloting and cognitive surveys provide a good idea of how communities interpret psychometric tests. Our results confirm differences in health literacy among populations with different levels of income and schooling. Health literacy assessment can guide the instructional design of community-directed health education programs.